( 1 ) AN alleged Will was sought to be introduced under Order 41 Rule 21 in appeal No. 27 of 1993 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, Moradabad, arising out of a decree passed in original suit No. 207 of 1977 By an order dated 1-4-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the said appeal, the application moved in this regard was rejected. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the learned lower appellate Court had illegally exercised his jurisdiction in rejecting the said application in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, acceptance of additional evidence is a rule and refusal is an exception. In order to decide the question at issue such evidence should have been allowed. He relies on a decision in the case of Jaipur Development Authority v. Smt. Kailashwati Devi, 1997 SCFBRC 386 : (AIR 1997 SC 3243 ). He further contends that it was never known to the petitioner as to in whose custody the said Will was lying though he had disclosed in his written statement as well as in the evidence. It was only in the mor